- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NCAA Playoff Committee Selected
Posted on 10/14/13 at 5:29 pm to VerlanderBEAST
Posted on 10/14/13 at 5:29 pm to VerlanderBEAST
There does need to be a purely objective basis for picking the participants.
The only way to do that is you win your conference. The whole country tunes in, everyone gets a shot.
Conference Champs - the season and divisions and conference play means everything again.
Now...then you can add two at-large teams based on some subjective measure like March Madness - so the SEC doesn't bitch and moan - because we all know, they're going to be dominant forever - as if this thing isn't cyclical.
But no one from the major conferences can complain because you have a route to the playoff - winning your conference.
8 Teams.
The only way to do that is you win your conference. The whole country tunes in, everyone gets a shot.
Conference Champs - the season and divisions and conference play means everything again.
Now...then you can add two at-large teams based on some subjective measure like March Madness - so the SEC doesn't bitch and moan - because we all know, they're going to be dominant forever - as if this thing isn't cyclical.
But no one from the major conferences can complain because you have a route to the playoff - winning your conference.
8 Teams.
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 5:31 pm
3
Posted on 10/14/13 at 5:32 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
There does need to be a purely objective basis for picking the participants.
The only way to do that is you win your conference.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 5:39 pm to Louie T
Why is that funny?
Seriously? Are you a child or something?
What is the objection to putting objectivity into college football - like every other damn college sports.
Basketball can do it - you win your conference - you get an auto bid.
But no, idiots want a beauty pageant so they can bitch and argue until the end of time - who was the real mythical national champion.
That's like arguing who is the real Santa Claus.
As long as subjective opinions from Joeblow or some coach who hasn't watched a single game apart from his opponents - decides these things - who gets to play who...
It will always be mythical.
Seriously? Are you a child or something?
What is the objection to putting objectivity into college football - like every other damn college sports.
Basketball can do it - you win your conference - you get an auto bid.
But no, idiots want a beauty pageant so they can bitch and argue until the end of time - who was the real mythical national champion.
That's like arguing who is the real Santa Claus.
As long as subjective opinions from Joeblow or some coach who hasn't watched a single game apart from his opponents - decides these things - who gets to play who...
It will always be mythical.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 5:41 pm to VermilionTiger
quote:
Condoleeza Rice
I thought this was a joke at first..
Posted on 10/14/13 at 5:45 pm to Zamoro10
quote:I'm not the one who feels the need to constantly complain about a conference and it's fans or tries to taint every single accomplishment by whining about partiality.
Seriously? Are you a child or something?
I'm laughing at your idea of objectivity, not at the idea of trying to make things more objective. Your attempt to compare it to the NCAAB format is idiotic.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 5:48 pm to VermilionTiger
quote:
2008...choose 4
Realistically, you can't. I'd say Florida, Oklahoma, Texas and Southern Cal, but that's post-hoc speaking. (OU and Texas won their bowl games while TT didn't *and* TT played the weakest opponent of the three; Southern Cal blew out Penn State in the Rose Bowl; the rest either come from AQ conferences and are the product of soft schedules, or lost their bowl game to aforesaid undeserving teams.) Making an argument at the time would have been virtually impossible.
4 is better on the whole, though. This and 2007 were the exceptions to the rule. I'd probably favor a 6-team playoff (top 2 teams get 1st-wk BYEs), but that's as far as it should go. (With six teams you add Alabama and Utah/Penn State/Texas Tech and call it a playoff in 08.)
The best thing that could be done is a variable-number playoff. For your 2002, 2005 type seasons, just do #1 vs #2. For your 2011 type seasons, do 4-team playoff. For your 2007 and 2008 seasons, do 8-team.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 5:51 pm to Carson123987
quote:
so ridiculous to have current ADs
Seriously wtf? How are they not going to be biased? I mean legitimately there job is to be biased in favor of their school
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:43 pm to GeauxAggie972
. Arkansas athletic director Jeff Long
OK
• Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez
Great
• Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, a former Air Force Academy superintendent
No
• USC athletic director Pat Haden
OK
• Former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt
No
• West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck
OK
• Former NFL and Ole Miss quarterback Archie Manning
Great
• Former Nebraska coach/athletic director Tom Osborne
Great
• Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich
No
• Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
NO!!
• Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese
OK
• Former USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg
NO!!
• Former Stanford/Notre Dame/Washington coach Tyrone Willingham
Maybe
OK
• Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez
Great
• Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, a former Air Force Academy superintendent
No
• USC athletic director Pat Haden
OK
• Former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt
No
• West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck
OK
• Former NFL and Ole Miss quarterback Archie Manning
Great
• Former Nebraska coach/athletic director Tom Osborne
Great
• Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich
No
• Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
NO!!
• Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese
OK
• Former USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg
NO!!
• Former Stanford/Notre Dame/Washington coach Tyrone Willingham
Maybe
Posted on 10/15/13 at 8:55 am to Kige Ramsey
Will the BCS still put out its rankings?
Posted on 10/15/13 at 9:04 am to Kige Ramsey
Again I think they have Rice on more for her experience in moderating debate and facilitating discourse. I don't think they're expecting her to be the be all, end all of football knowledge. It's a stupid idea overall and selection committees suck, but I get why they are including someone like her.
Posted on 10/15/13 at 9:10 am to Zamoro10
quote:
There does need to be a purely objective basis for picking the participants.
The only way to do that is you win your conference. The whole country tunes in, everyone gets a shot.
I actually like this idea.
I think they should keep the BCS as a reference like RPI, and the conference champ needs to be ranked within say the top 8 or 10 to get the playoff berth. That way we avoid shitty major conference champs likes UCONN a few years ago getting to play for the championship.
Posted on 10/15/13 at 9:40 am to Zamoro10
quote:
8 Teams.
At a minimum.
4 teams out of 122 isn't a legitimate playoff.
MLB - 10/30
NFL - 12/32
NBA - 16/30
1AA Football - 24/122
NCAA Baseball - 64/240?
NCAA Basketball - 68?/240?
Posted on 10/15/13 at 9:44 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
4 teams out of 122 isn't a legitimate playoff.
I don't think they are trying to make a legit playoff. Seems they are just giving in to the masses that want to see some sort of "playoff." A first step, if you will.
Posted on 10/15/13 at 9:46 am to craigbiggio
quote:
I think they should keep the BCS as a reference like RPI
That;s why I was curious if the BCS will still put out its rankings. Nothing is stopping them from doing so.
The committee is going to have some sort of rankings that they will use during their discussions. They have to use something. They won't just say, "Ok, we have 120 temas with no rankings. Let's see if we can find the best 4."
I think a lot of the years, it will just be the committee picking from 6-8 teams to decide which 4 go. Nobody will be making a case for a team that would be ranked outside of the top 10.
This post was edited on 10/15/13 at 9:47 am
Posted on 10/15/13 at 9:48 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:You know what else all these leagues have in common?
MLB - 10/30
NFL - 12/32
NBA - 16/30
1AA Football - 24/122
NCAA Baseball - 64/240?
NCAA Basketball - 68?/240?
Posted on 10/15/13 at 9:52 am to alajones
quote:
You know what else all these leagues have in common?
Undisputed champions? At least some specific qualifications for earning a playoff birth?
Posted on 10/15/13 at 9:53 am to Wayne Campbell
The regular season means jack shite.
Posted on 10/15/13 at 9:57 am to Chair
quote:
The committee is going to have some sort of rankings that they will use during their discussions. They have to use something. They won't just say, "Ok, we have 120 temas with no rankings. Let's see if we can find the best 4."
Yeah. I wonder if they will just compile all of the computer rankings. Really no reason to factor in the human polls for their discussions.
Posted on 10/15/13 at 9:58 am to alajones
quote:
The regular season means jack shite.
Overrated claim that the BCS has been using to sell it's product. Did the 2004 season mean jack shite to Auburn? Did 2001 mean jack shite to LSU?
ETA: Also, it's inarguable that in each of those playoffs, winning your division or conference gives you a decided advantage in the playoff. It doesn't guarantee that the best team in the regular season will win, but their road is much easier because of it.
This post was edited on 10/15/13 at 10:17 am
Posted on 10/15/13 at 9:59 am to craigbiggio
quote:
I think they should keep the BCS as a reference like RPI, and the conference champ needs to be ranked within say the top 8 or 10 to get the playoff berth. That way we avoid shitty major conference champs likes UCONN a few years ago getting to play for the championship.
You can use the BCS to pick the few at-large teams but all conference champs need to be in.
We can't continue this bias and subjective opinion that certain conference champs suck - just because we think so and could never beat team X from Y conference.
Do I need to go through a laundry list of teams everyone thought would get manhandled in their bowl game because they were shitty champs or BCS busters compared to the SEC or Big 12?
Sugar Bowl
Utah over Alabama
West Virginia over Georgia
Louisville over Florida (Cardinals were a 15 point underdog!) And these games aren't ancient history.
Fiesta Bowl
Boise St. over Oklahoma
West Virginia over Oklahoma
Ohio State over Miami
Regular Season
Jacksonville State over Ole Miss
Navy over Notre Dame
Louisiana-Monroe over Alabama
Appy State over Michigan
James Madison over VaTech
Wyoming over Tennessee
In short, nobody really knows - you need to play the games. We need to end this era where reputation and bias wins you a seat at the final table - and you get to avoid working your way to the top.
We have way more parity now - bias and old perceptions are looking worse and more ignorant year after year.
Assumptions are no way to crown a supposed champion.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News